WebTransport
charter-ietf-webtrans-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Barry Leiba Yes

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

(Adam Roach) (was No Objection) Yes

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper (was Block) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-12 for -00-01)
Thanks for addressing my comments.

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2020-02-05 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Concur that the clarifications suggested by Magnus and Alissa would be helpful

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2020-02-06 for -00-00)
Do we have a target security level (e.g., "the same as HTTPS with TLS 1.3")
that we want this work to provide?

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-05 for -00-00)
No email
send info
Support Alissa's and Magnus's block points and would like to see them clarified.

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-06 for -00-00)
In support of Alissa's and Magnus' blocks I would also like to see this (initially) more narrowly scoped. Especially talking about "protocols or protocol extensions" without constraining this statement to a set of transport protocols that need to be used, as well as not constraining the list "range of simple communication methods" to a limited (initial) list basically allows this charter to define more or less any kind of protocol (over the whole stack).

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2020-02-06 for -00-00)
I will follow the discussion around the BLOCK points of my fellow AD but I wonder why this is in ART and not in TSV? 

-éric

Magnus Westerlund (was Block) No Objection

Comment (2020-02-13 for -00-01)
Thanks, this new charter do address the blocking points I have. 

The coordination with the API development still is unclear on this level. I do understand the challenge to be clear on it. So just leaving this as a comment.